We do not make jokes, we simply watch the LA Times, the Orange County Register and the Coto de Caza Board of directors and report the facts!
CID/HOA Legal Resources
Business judgment rule
George K. Staropoli Website & selected material
v. Kite Hill,142
Cal App 3d 642 (1983) (A
homeowners association board is in effect “a quasi-government entity
paralleling in almost every case the powers, duties, and
responsibilities of a municipal government.”)
v. Long Boat Harbour, 757
F Supp. 1339 (M.D. Fla. 1991) (court enforcement of private agreements
in condo declarations is a state action; flag; free speech).
v. NLRB 424
US 507 (1976) (functions of a municipality, citing Marsh; shopping
326 US 501 (1946) (company town and public functions)
334 US 1 (prohibitive state actions by use of judicial enforcement as
state was fully aware of the illegal use of the courts; judicial
enforcement harms constitutional rights)
v. Lee Optical,
348 US 483, (1954) (rational basis for scrutiny)
v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club, 85
Cal. App. 4th 468; (2000) (quasi-government; board meetings public
forums similar to government body;defamation)
Publishing Co. v. Golden Rain Found. of Laguna Hills,
131 Cal. App. 3d 182 (1982) (HOA has attributes that “in many ways
approximate a municipality . . . close to a characterization as a
84 v. Mullen Ct.
of Special Appeals of Maryland, No. 495 (September 1984) (state action;
procedural due process; lack of notice; CAI Reporter).
v. Watergate 502
So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 4 Dist. App. (1987)( public functiuons test; close
nexus criteria; HOA lacks character of a company town)
for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers, 929
A.2d 1060 (NJ 2007) (HOA not state actor per NJ Scmidt version
of Marsh; Not
US but NJ Const.
Lake v. Director of Revenue,
813 SW 2d 305 (not civic organization)
v. Cappuccio, 673
A 2d 340, Pa. Super. (1996) (condo is a pvt organization, not muni govt;
not a company town)
526 P.2d 747, Ariz. App. Div. 2 (1974) (state action; classification;
enforce age restrictions;”court to enforce constitutional commands”;
restriction was a permissible government interest).
v. Mirage Casino-Hotel, 43 P 3rd 243 (Nev. 2001) (state action;
public functions; delegating functions to private persons; commerical
advertising on private property).
Du Lac Ass’n, Inc. v. Terre Du Lac, Inc., 737
S.W.2d 206 (Mo. App. 1987). (quasi govt) (how a homeowner’s
association operates as a “quasi-governmental entity,” not authority
for the concept that an association’s “quasi-governmental” actions
are state actions;).
v. Lake Lotawana, 95
SW 3d 144 (Mo. App. 2003) (no support for “close nexus” state
above cases in bold are
color coded. Red is
adverse to constitutional protections; Blue is
favorable; black in
are 3 case against and 4 cases in favor. Two were not dispositive. The
“against” cases were all based on a “public functions” test.
non-bold cases concern related issues not involving an HOA/condo, such
as state action, public
functions, or mini/quasi governments.
above findings are not exhaustive and reflect the analysis of some 153
HOA/condo , state action cases on a federal and state level.
Copy of State of Coto Security, a White Paper authored by former security director.
Basic Process Improvement HandbookHandbook
The CotoBuzz Journal P.O. Box 154 Trabuco Canyon, CA 92678 (509) 355-8895